The spinal cord injury problem--a review.

W F Collins, J Piepmeier, E Ogle
{"title":"The spinal cord injury problem--a review.","authors":"W F Collins,&nbsp;J Piepmeier,&nbsp;E Ogle","doi":"10.1089/cns.1986.3.317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The incidence of spinal cord injury in the United States is between 50 and 55 million per year. The personal and societal costs have been an impetus for experimental studies that defined the posttraumatic pathological and biochemical changes from which the hypothesis has arisen that a portion of the resulting neurological deficit is caused by the response of the spinal cord to the injury. Alteration in this response has been a therapeutic goal. Clinical series over a number of years with varied treatment regimens have failed to show any significant difference in neurological outcome. A single randomized clinical trial of 'high dose' 'low dose' steroid treatment failed to support the secondary injury response hypothesis. The experimental studies and lack of therapeutic effectiveness of present treatment both support the concept of further experimental studies and further randomized clinical trials. It is important to test the hypothesis of secondary injury since, if it is a cause of a portion of the resultant loss of neurological function, the benefit of its control would extend beyond spinal cord injury to other central nervous system injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":77690,"journal":{"name":"Central nervous system trauma : journal of the American Paralysis Association","volume":"3 4","pages":"317-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/cns.1986.3.317","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central nervous system trauma : journal of the American Paralysis Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/cns.1986.3.317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

The incidence of spinal cord injury in the United States is between 50 and 55 million per year. The personal and societal costs have been an impetus for experimental studies that defined the posttraumatic pathological and biochemical changes from which the hypothesis has arisen that a portion of the resulting neurological deficit is caused by the response of the spinal cord to the injury. Alteration in this response has been a therapeutic goal. Clinical series over a number of years with varied treatment regimens have failed to show any significant difference in neurological outcome. A single randomized clinical trial of 'high dose' 'low dose' steroid treatment failed to support the secondary injury response hypothesis. The experimental studies and lack of therapeutic effectiveness of present treatment both support the concept of further experimental studies and further randomized clinical trials. It is important to test the hypothesis of secondary injury since, if it is a cause of a portion of the resultant loss of neurological function, the benefit of its control would extend beyond spinal cord injury to other central nervous system injuries.

脊髓损伤问题——回顾。
在美国,脊髓损伤的发病率每年在5000万到5500万之间。个人和社会的代价已经成为实验研究的动力,这些实验研究定义了创伤后病理和生化变化,由此产生了一种假设,即部分神经功能缺陷是由脊髓对损伤的反应引起的。改变这种反应一直是治疗的目标。多年来采用不同治疗方案的临床研究未能显示神经预后有任何显著差异。一项单独的“高剂量”和“低剂量”类固醇治疗的随机临床试验未能支持继发性损伤反应假说。实验研究和目前治疗效果的缺乏都支持进一步的实验研究和进一步的随机临床试验的概念。检验继发性损伤的假设是很重要的,因为如果继发性损伤是部分神经功能丧失的原因,那么控制继发性损伤的好处将从脊髓损伤扩展到其他中枢神经系统损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信